Dunno... depends on whether you go by the various developers (even on iOS) saying that HTML5 sucks and are switching to native apps in order to get the look and performance they need.

Nothing is going to perform better than native.

And HTML5 doesn't even perform well enough.

Quote:

Is there any indication that that Flash would perform any better than HTML5 on mobile devices?

Your point is moot. HTML5 doesn't even perform well enough on mobile devices so using it even down to parity with HTML5 is still, evidently, a non-starter. It'd have to be near or better to native to perform well enough, and as you say, nothing performs better than native.

Heck, the US just fought two wars at once and yet more people died in auto accidents than the wars. Think of that. If the self-driving car was even break-even with that, never mind actually better, we'd get people to sign up.

In short, if it really works, the social problems, while real, would fade over time.

Your point is moot. HTML5 doesn't even perform well enough on mobile devices so using it even down to parity with HTML5 is still, evidently, a non-starter. It'd have to be near or better to native to perform well enough, and as you say, nothing performs better than native.

What aspects of HTML5 are you referring to? The video element, for instance, performs every bit as well as native as it is natively rendering video. Canvas is hit and miss. I would not expect to be able to render a game in 60fps with it but for basic 2D drawing and animation it performs no worse than Flash on mobile.

Your point is moot. HTML5 doesn't even perform well enough on mobile devices so using it even down to parity with HTML5 is still, evidently, a non-starter. It'd have to be near or better to native to perform well enough, and as you say, nothing performs better than native.

What aspects of HTML5 are you referring to? The video element, for instance, performs every bit as well as native as it is natively rendering video. Canvas is hit and miss. I would not expect to be able to render a game in 60fps with it but for basic 2D drawing and animation it performs no worse than Flash on mobile.

Evidently the ones that matter to people writing programs even as simple as displaying Facebook text on the screen. The video elements work because they're more likely native code underneath. And again... performing "no worse than Flash" isn't praise. It's still not fast enough, evidently, judging by devs around the 'net-o-sphere.

Dunno... depends on whether you go by the various developers (even on iOS) saying that HTML5 sucks and are switching to native apps in order to get the look and performance they need.

Nothing is going to perform better than native. Is there any indication that that Flash would perform any better than HTML5 on mobile devices?

and yet on desktops, people don't have hundreds of "apps" installed to do shit that can easily be done in a browser. No facebook, ebay, yahoomail, etc.--you just go to the site. There are only apps on phones/tablets because they have to in order to make up for the deficiencies of phones.

Evidently the ones that matter to people writing programs even as simple as displaying Facebook text on the screen. The video elements work because they're more likely native code underneath. And again... performing "no worse than Flash" isn't praise. It's still not fast enough, evidently, judging by devs around the 'net-o-sphere.

Any HTML content (remove the 5) is going to perform less optimally than native code. Is any app in your web browser quicker than any (decently written) desktop app? The complaint isn't HTML5 vs Flash vs native, it's HTML vs native which scores a "no shit" at best.

Evidently the ones that matter to people writing programs even as simple as displaying Facebook text on the screen. The video elements work because they're more likely native code underneath. And again... performing "no worse than Flash" isn't praise. It's still not fast enough, evidently, judging by devs around the 'net-o-sphere.

The google questions were typed in, whereas Siri used voice, obviously. I'd like to see the same test with voice used for Google, though.

But some of these Siri answers seem to really be directing you towards businesses instead of what you really want to see.

Quote:

When did the movie Cinderella come out? Responded with a movie theater search on Yelp.

What spices are in Lasagna? Responded with a Yelp search with lasagna on the menu.

I want to go to Lake Superior? Responded with directions to the company Lake Superior X-Ray.

That could just be that the software didn't understand the question, of course, and deferred to a service for the answer. But the fact that Google did better with natural language queries is surprising.

Evidently the ones that matter to people writing programs even as simple as displaying Facebook text on the screen. The video elements work because they're more likely native code underneath. And again... performing "no worse than Flash" isn't praise. It's still not fast enough, evidently, judging by devs around the 'net-o-sphere.

Any HTML content (remove the 5) is going to perform less optimally than native code. Is any app in your web browser quicker than any (decently written) desktop app? The complaint isn't HTML5 vs Flash vs native, it's HTML vs native which scores a "no shit" at best.

My desktop is fast enough to where it doesn't matter most of the time. The slowest part involved in using most apps on my desktop is the meat part.

Siri definitely needs to get better with context, yeah. Google has been parsing context in search for more than 10 years now, so it's not very surprising that it's far superior to Siri; frankly it'd be a complete embarrassment if that wasn't the case.

I would imagine that same context parsing experience is going to be a key aspect of Google's improved version of voice search in Android 4.1. If the demos of it shown at I/O are any indication, their new voice search is going to be excellent. While I feel that Siri caught Google flat footed, this is their bread and butter and they will come to surpass Siri in accuracy pretty handily.

Siri definitely needs to get better with context, yeah. Google has been parsing context in search for more than 10 years now, so it's not very surprising that it's far superior to Siri, frankly it'd be a complete embarrassment if that wasn't the case.

I would imagine that context parsing experience is going to be a aspect of Google's improved voice actions in the version of voice search in Android 4.1. If the demos of it shown at I/O are any indication, their new voice search is going to be excellent.

But they need to give it a name and have it tell bad jokes for it to be marketable.

Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if they build in some cutesy stuff given their doodles and funny search responses in the past. It will probably have a more geeky slant than Apple, however.

Actually, those iPhone commercials are really, really bad. I admit, though, of the bunch, Samuel Jackson's is the best of the bunch but that's not saying too much... it's just "ok"... the Zooey one is pretty bad, as in "buy our product and get a free lobotomy" type bad and John Malkovich's makes me sad... like "he should be in a nursing home" sad. If Jobs were still alive, they would never have aired.

Actually, those iPhone commercials are really, really bad. I admit, though, of the bunch, Samuel Jackson's is the best of the bunch but that's not saying too much... it's just "ok"... the Zooey one is pretty bad, as in "buy our product and get a free lobotomy" type bad and John Malkovich's makes me sad... like "he should be in a nursing home" sad. If Jobs were still alive, they would never have aired.

It has the effect of making the viewer think who are these sad losers who sit around all day day talking to their phones. That isn't a good way to sell the product

Actually, those iPhone commercials are really, really bad. I admit, though, of the bunch, Samuel Jackson's is the best of the bunch but that's not saying too much... it's just "ok"... the Zooey one is pretty bad, as in "buy our product and get a free lobotomy" type bad and John Malkovich's makes me sad... like "he should be in a nursing home" sad. If Jobs were still alive, they would never have aired.

They all suck but hotspacho is funny because I can't hear the word "gazpacho" without saying "Unless you like hotspacho!"

The Zooey one is so painful it's almost a parody. Tomato soup? Really?

And just what are those quirks? (Hint--it isn't quirks--it is simple physics).

Smooth traffic flows, even at low speed, would provide better throughput than stop-and-go, but the tendency of human drivers to immediately pull into any space that opens up in front of their vehicles makes smooth low-speed flows nearly impossible to maintain. As soon as one driver does have to fully stop, for any reason (such as slightly exceeding the flow speed and getting too close to the next vehicle, which is also a common human behavior), a stop-and-go pattern is established that propagates backwards.

So, no, there's really no reason why a road (or a lane) full of robocars that can coordinate their actions should ever end up in a stop-and-go pattern. They can obviously end up totally stopped, if the road is completely obstructed, or moving very slowly, if there's an obstruction limiting throughput ahead, but stop-and-go is fundamentally avoidable.

Once you have the self driving cars, you can have them draft each other on interstates. You could also have all electric (no motor) cars and think of a bus with a generator (and batteries) that your car can dock to to recharge... while driving 200mph down the interstate.

Once everyone uses robocars, there is another thing that will die... parking lots. No cars get parked because there's no need. Think about how large of an area of dead land that is required for a parking lot outside your local mall or WalMart... gone. Now all through your town/city how many parking lots there are... gone. Think about how much stuff around your town/city are designed *around* parking.

And just what are those quirks? (Hint--it isn't quirks--it is simple physics).

Smooth traffic flows, even at low speed, would provide better throughput than stop-and-go, but the tendency of human drivers to immediately pull into any space that opens up in front of their vehicles makes smooth low-speed flows nearly impossible to maintain. As soon as one driver does have to fully stop, for any reason (such as slightly exceeding the flow speed and getting too close to the next vehicle, which is also a common human behavior), a stop-and-go pattern is established that propagates backwards.

I can't remember where to find it or even what it was, but there was a study done sometime back that showed what you describe - someone pulling out from a side-road that causes traffic on the main road to slow/stop for even a short time - will generate a disruption that can be observed in the traffic flow for a long time... like up to 30 minutes (in heavy traffic) or longer... even though no other event like that (someone else pulling out) happens during that time. And like you say, many times it propagates backwards in the traffic flow from the spot it occurred.

Once everyone uses robocars, there is another thing that will die... parking lots. No cars get parked because there's no need.

Shenanigans.

Well... they'll need storage somewhere, but parking lots like those outside malls and WalMart will no longer be necessary. There will be places vehicles may need to be stationary for some time, too (fueling centers, for example).

Well... they'll need storage somewhere, but parking lots like those outside malls and WalMart will no longer be necessary.

What do you suggest, and why wouldn't it be possible with human piloted cars?

Well... if everyone used taxis it could work... no parking needed. But as long as you own a car and drive it, you expect to park it outside the mall/WalMart, go in shopping, come back out to your car, and drive home. With a robocar, you use your smartphone to have it show up at your house, pick you up, drop you off at the mall/WalMart, and it drives away. When you're done shopping, you do the same thing... use your smartphone, it picks you up, and takes you home, driving away after you get out. You wouldn't need to build a garage on your house anymore, either.

Another thing you can get rid of is traffic lights, except in the case of pedestrian crossings. It's possible to have two perpendicular flows of automated traffic move through each other at speed, simply by having vehicles coordinate to make minor speed adjustments as they approach the intersection. One could imagine cities building lots of pedestrian overpasses in their downtown areas to enable this.

It even works at highway speeds, at least in simulations. (There used to actually be a really great visual simulation of this online, but I can't presently locate it.)

Well... if everyone used taxis it could work... no parking needed. But as long as you own a car and drive it, you expect to park it outside the mall/WalMart, go in shopping, come back out to your car, an drive home. With a robocar, you use your smartphone to have it show up at your house, pick you up, drop you off at the mall/WalMart, and it drives away. When you're done shopping, you do the same thing... use your smartphone, it picks you up, and takes you home, driving away after you get out.

It drives away to where?

I mean, this seems obvious, but you realize the car still exists after it drives away, right?

And just what are those quirks? (Hint--it isn't quirks--it is simple physics).

Smooth traffic flows, even at low speed, would provide better throughput than stop-and-go, but the tendency of human drivers to immediately pull into any space that opens up in front of their vehicles makes smooth low-speed flows nearly impossible to maintain. As soon as one driver does have to fully stop, for any reason (such as slightly exceeding the flow speed and getting too close to the next vehicle, which is also a common human behavior), a stop-and-go pattern is established that propagates backwards.

So, no, there's really no reason why a road (or a lane) full of robocars that can coordinate their actions should ever end up in a stop-and-go pattern. They can obviously end up totally stopped, if the road is completely obstructed, or moving very slowly, if there's an obstruction limiting throughput ahead, but stop-and-go is fundamentally avoidable.

Once everyone uses robocars, there is another thing that will die... parking lots. No cars get parked because there's no need. Think about how large of an area of dead land that is required for a parking lot outside your local mall or WalMart... gone. Now all through your town/city how many parking lots there are... gone. Think about how much stuff around your town/city are designed *around* parking.

And where would my robocar BE if I went to the mall in it if not the parkinglot?

Well... if everyone used taxis it could work... no parking needed. But as long as you own a car and drive it, you expect to park it outside the mall/WalMart, go in shopping, come back out to your car, an drive home. With a robocar, you use your smartphone to have it show up at your house, pick you up, drop you off at the mall/WalMart, and it drives away. When you're done shopping, you do the same thing... use your smartphone, it picks you up, and takes you home, driving away after you get out.

It drives away to where?

I mean, this seems obvious, but you realize the car still exists after it drives away, right?

Absolutely. It drives away to pick up another passenger somewhere else (or perhaps picks up a passenger from the same place it just let you out right after you get out) like a taxi might would do. Except in this case, you wouldn't have the taxi queue like you commonly see at some of these places since the robocars can be more efficiently summoned and used. In the worse case, it drives back to the transportation vendor for storage.

A smart transportation vendor will have a few storage facilities around a large city (fewer in smaller cities and towns) to redirect the robocar to during idle times so they can respond quicker when they are needed. Also, since fewer actual cars will be required, those storage areas should be a significant net decrease in area needed. The parking lots around the mall/WalMart go away. In all, there could be major density increases in areas like that... no giant sprawling mall and parking lot, just buildings a lot closer to each other. You can have tiny robocars carry people around those dense areas. Transportation vendors can have single-seater robocars, too, as well as dual occupancy, quad, and even eight. Additionally, haulers and other specialty vehicles.

Once everyone uses robocars, there is another thing that will die... parking lots. No cars get parked because there's no need. Think about how large of an area of dead land that is required for a parking lot outside your local mall or WalMart... gone. Now all through your town/city how many parking lots there are... gone. Think about how much stuff around your town/city are designed *around* parking.

And where would my robocar BE if I went to the mall in it if not the parkinglot?

A much, much, smaller parking lot.

Think of a bike rack, but for cars. 3 inches between cars, 5 inches above cars, 2 inches in front of cars, etc.

Once everyone uses robocars, there is another thing that will die... parking lots. No cars get parked because there's no need. Think about how large of an area of dead land that is required for a parking lot outside your local mall or WalMart... gone. Now all through your town/city how many parking lots there are... gone. Think about how much stuff around your town/city are designed *around* parking.

And where would my robocar BE if I went to the mall in it if not the parkinglot?

Well... they'll need storage somewhere, but parking lots like those outside malls and WalMart will no longer be necessary.

What do you suggest, and why wouldn't it be possible with human piloted cars?

Well... if everyone used taxis it could work... no parking needed. But as long as you own a car and drive it, you expect to park it outside the mall/WalMart, go in shopping, come back out to your car, and drive home. With a robocar, you use your smartphone to have it show up at your house, pick you up, drop you off at the mall/WalMart, and it drives away. When you're done shopping, you do the same thing... use your smartphone, it picks you up, and takes you home, driving away after you get out. You wouldn't need to build a garage on your house anymore, either.

But where does it go while I am inside? that doesn't make sense. And driving away certainly doesn't make sense energy wise.

Well... they'll need storage somewhere, but parking lots like those outside malls and WalMart will no longer be necessary.

What do you suggest, and why wouldn't it be possible with human piloted cars?

Well... if everyone used taxis it could work... no parking needed. But as long as you own a car and drive it, you expect to park it outside the mall/WalMart, go in shopping, come back out to your car, and drive home. With a robocar, you use your smartphone to have it show up at your house, pick you up, drop you off at the mall/WalMart, and it drives away. When you're done shopping, you do the same thing... use your smartphone, it picks you up, and takes you home, driving away after you get out. You wouldn't need to build a garage on your house anymore, either.

But where does it go while I am inside? that doesn't make sense. And driving away certainly doesn't make sense energy wise.

It goes to pick up someone else if it needs to. Think: taxi. You won't need to own these things.

So if robocars require some kind of infrastructure to optimize traffic flows -- some kind of large system to coordinate and mimize bottlenecks in an urban area then the question which could be raised is why not spend the money on improving public transit.

If humans are just going to be passive passengers, they might as well ride buses instead of robocars. I think a bigger cause of congestion has more to do with the fact that most cars on the road now are occupied only by the driver. Certainly buses and the like is a more efficient way to move people around and would reduce the number of vehicles on the road, reduce the infrastructure needed to support the transit needs of a given metro area.

So if robocars require some kind of infrastructure to optimize traffic flows -- some kind of large system to coordinate and mimize bottlenecks in an urban area then the question which could be raised is why not spend the money on improving public transit.

Robocars will be public transit.

Right now, the most cost-effective means we have are buses. A big issue is that we have to pay for drivers, so the bus has to be large and that means it ends up on fixed routes and nearly a fixed schedule or something very much like it. Lot of busses with not many people in them; often going way out of their way.

Robocars would make it possible for a handful of individuals to "share" a bus on a custom route designed on the fly as people are picked up and dropped off going point-to-point. New infrastructure needed: Nil. If anything, to the extent they are public rather than private (there would be plenty of the latter, too), they would take pressure off of the road system and its maintenance.

Who knows, maybe some fixed route robovans would go in the mix to allow people to do both optimal time and optimal cost.

So if robocars require some kind of infrastructure to optimize traffic flows -- some kind of large system to coordinate and mimize bottlenecks in an urban area then the question which could be raised is why not spend the money on improving public transit.

Because this is public transit. Robocars don't need special infrastructure, they just operate better with them.

Quote:

If humans are just going to be passive passengers, they might as well ride buses instead of robocars.

Shrink the buses to only seat 4 or so people, have them stop anywhere to pick up and drop of people, and remove the driver, and you have robocars.

Quote:

I think a bigger cause of congestion has more to do with the fact that most cars on the road now are occupied only by the driver.

Certainly you can improve the volume density of traffic, but you also have the problem that human drivers are imperfect and increasing the traffic density multiplies the effects that cause traffic jams in the first place.

Quote:

Certainly buses and the like is a more efficient way to move people around and would reduce the number of vehicles on the road, reduce the infrastructure needed to support the transit needs of a given metro area.

But it wouldn't solve traffic jams and it wouldn't solve the last mile problem.